Competition

Just got back from New York where Dan Brenner of NCTA and I faced off against NN proponents Professor Susan Crawford and Skype's Chris Libertelli.

It was a different format less washington-ish and more finance-ish given the audience and Eli Noam's deft moderating hand.

The quip of the day goes to my colleague Dan Brenner who summed up the net neutrality proponents views as "love the carriage, hate the carrier."

• So true, they just want to assume that the network will always be there and not have to pay for it.

I framed my views in an MBA context, explaining what was really going on competitively and commercially in the NN debate.

• I explained that the dominant dynamic in the sector was the collision of the converging tech and com sectors;  (My techcom thesis.) and that net neutrality was simply the politics of that violent collision..
• I also framed it as a huge clash between the very different business models of the software industry  that wants bandwidth to be abundant and free, and the hardware/network sector that have to invest, build and make the Internet work and that have to keep up with the exploding demand of bringing video to the net.
• I reminded them of the exaflood point that a 30 minute sitcom consumes 7,000 times more bandwidth than visiting a website,
• You can't wave a magic wand and have the Internet handle video without lots more investment in capacity -- that someone has to pay for -- and why should it just be the consumer that has to pay that bill.

The best question was how could one bridge the gulf between the polarized sides.

I was delighted to see Mark Goldberg's post alerting us in America that the Canadian Government is opposed to embracing net neutrality regulation as well.

I love Mark's no apologies free market stance. He knows the Internet's growth, vitality, and diversity has come from free citizens, freely interacting and cooperating, free of government intervention. As he said, let freedom reign!

This is more evidence that the rest of the world is not pro-net neutrality despite the balderdash NN proponents toss  around.  

What do the following three stories of the last few days have in common?

• Yesterday, Reuters quoted Google's head of TV Technology, Vincent Dureau, saying: "the Web infrastructure, and even Google's (infastructure) doesn't scale. Its not going to offer the quality of service that consumers expect." in an article that highlighted new Internet TV services of Joost and YouTube.
• Tuesday, USA Today had a front page story that WalMart was launching a service in conjuction with major studios to allow downloading of movies the same day as DVDs are released and the next day for TV shows through WalMart.com.  
• USA Today also reported Tuedsay that TiVo and Amazon were launching a new service for letting online users download movies to their DVRs and then watch them on their TVs rather than their computers.

What's the common thread? Its obvious that the capacity of the Internet will have to increase exponentially and rapidly to handle the coming exponential increase in traffic generated by Internet video.

       "GOOGLE'S HYPOCRITIC OATH"

As a 'Googler", I swear to fulfill to the best of my ability and judgement this covenant:

I will do harm to competitors while claiming to be their victim.

I will use double negatives like "don't be evil" to simulate sincerity and maintain 'plausible deniability.'

I will defend Google's legendary secrecy and lack of transparency by explaining secrecy is what keeps the Internet 'open'.

I will claim Google works for consumers even though all of Google's revenues come from advertisers.

Today's WSJ article: "MySpace pact with Google hits a snag" is a helpful reminder of the competition double standard and hypocrisy of net neutrality proponents Google and eBay.

Google the dominant search gatekeeper with 47% share and rising is the world's leading Internet access technology. They have a pact with Myspace, one of the fastest growing sites on the planet that would pay MySpace's News Corp. $900m for placing Google's search on MySpace.

• While this business practice is perfectly legal and above board, it is precisely the type of business arrangement that Google has outrageously mischaracterized as "discrimination" and is seeking to make illegal for its broadband competitors.

 Meanwhile, the pact is supposedly hung up because MySpace would still like to have a "discrimnation" deal with eBay too, where MySpace users could use post eBay auctions on their MySpace page. But Google only likes "discrimination" that is in its favor.

Listen to a priceless quote from the WSj article today:

• "Google isn't likely to favor any deal that promotes eBay services that compete with their own."
  • Yep that sums it up Google's real belief in "neutrality." 

How does Google explain their attempt to "block, degrade and impair" eBay's ability to easily reach Myspace consumers is not precisely the net neutrality "discrimination" problem that they want to ban?

I have attached the link to Esther Dyson's important interview on net neutrality.

• Her real life experience and leadership in dealing with ICANN and government regulators is worth paying attention to.
• Esther is very widely respected in the Internet community and always thoughtful in her approach to problems.
• She has even been dubbed the "Internet High Priestess".

Wired has an interesting article on how Microsoft's new Vista operating system has had to make some tough and restrictive design calls that some could misread as "discriminatory".

• The Wired article by Michael Calore, explains how Microsoft restricts or "cripples" users ability to use virtualization technologies to get certain content and how Microsoft's Defender will search for spyware and in some cases automatically delete applications.
• it looks as if Microsoft has legitimate business reasons for this blocking, degrading and impairing of certain content and applications.  

Why this is relevant to net neutrality and Microsoft is that:

• Microsoft has 90% share of the Internet browser market which is a potential Internet access technology bottleneck and gatekeeper that net neutrality proponents conceptually fear;
• Microsoft as explained in this Wired article is clearly exercising its freedom to:
• discriminate against users to force them to buy a higher priced product if they want to do certain things; and
• design its product and service as it sees fit.
• Microsoft clearly wants to preserve its right to differentiate and to control its product/service, something we at NetCompetition understand and support.

 Why this is relevant to Microsoft's departure from ItsOurNet is that Microsoft evidently understands that regulation can be "unreasonable" and "unjust" as I explained in a previous post.

The evidence continues to pile up that Google is well on its way to achieving a 50% share of the search market, a significant antitrust threshold where a company is considered "dominant" and subject to "stricter scrutiny" for potential anti-competitive practices.

• Google's ~50% market share is highly relevant to the Net neutrality issue because:
• Search is now the leading Internet access technology, and
• Google's national and international scale and market share dwarf the potential gatekeeper role of any U.S. broadband player.

Microsoft's recent earnings call showed how badly Microsoft is doing in search.

It seems asking the U.S. Congress for a huge corporate welfare gift in net neutrality legislation is not enough to satisfy Google's insatiable appetite for special interest gifts from the government.

• According to the Charlotte Observer, as picked up by Google Blog, Google, one of the most profitable and fast-growing companies in U.S. history, won't bless the state of North Carolina with their presence unless the State would give Google "secret" tax breaks to the tune of $89 million.

Seems like this is a real pattern for Google. 

I was pleasantly surprised and very pleased that FCC Chairman Martin proactively released a proposed order that would reclassify wireless broadband as a Title I information service, as reported in today's Comm Daily. This order, which looks to have the support of the Republican majority, would continue to harmonize the regulatory treatment of all the major modes of broadband.

• The FCC has already classified cable modems, DSL and BPL as unregulated info services.
• Given the robustness of wireless competition in the U.S., reclassifying wireless broadband as an info service should be a no-brainer.
• The FCC should also do another order to classify satellite broadband as an info service as well.

Why this is relevant to NN is that the expert agency overseeing competition in this market segment is concluding that there is sufficient competition to not require common carrier-like regulation.

• The U. S. has three times more WiFi hotspots than any other country and more facilities-based wireless broadband investment and deployment than any other nation in the world through Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile. Moreover,  Sprint and Clearwire are also beginning to build national WiMax networks.
• Wireless competition is robust, clearly warranting an info services classification.